Ensure that language in XHTML+RDFa 1.1 does not prevent the implementation of an HTMLLiteral datatype in the future. Ensure that HTML+RDFa 1.1 is not prevented from implementing an HTMLLiteral datatype. link

RDFa Lite 1.1 will make normative statements about Document Conformance, but stay silent on RDFa Processor conformance. HTML+RDFa 1.1 will depend on RDFa Core 1.1 and RDFa Lite 1.1 and will make normative statements both on Document Conformance and RDFa Processor conformance. link

15:15:36 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Ensure that language in XHTML+RDFa 1.1 does not prevent the implementation of an HTMLLiteral datatype in the future. Ensure that HTML+RDFa 1.1 is not prevented from implementing an HTMLLiteral datatype.

PROPOSED: Ensure that language in XHTML+RDFa 1.1 does not prevent the implementation of an HTMLLiteral datatype in the future. Ensure that HTML+RDFa 1.1 is not prevented from implementing an HTMLLiteral datatype.←

15:16:14 <manu1> RESOLVED: Ensure that language in XHTML+RDFa 1.1 does not prevent the implementation of an HTMLLiteral datatype in the future. Ensure that HTML+RDFa 1.1 is not prevented from implementing an HTMLLiteral datatype.

RESOLVED: Ensure that language in XHTML+RDFa 1.1 does not prevent the implementation of an HTMLLiteral datatype in the future. Ensure that HTML+RDFa 1.1 is not prevented from implementing an HTMLLiteral datatype.←

15:24:18 <manu1> niklas: I was wondering if a normative statement could be made like so: RDFa Lite is a usage pattern and not speak about conformance levels and technical details...

Niklas Lindström: I was wondering if a normative statement could be made like so: RDFa Lite is a usage pattern and not speak about conformance levels and technical details... [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←

15:24:50 <gkellogg> q+ to ask what processing rules would be different for RDFa 1.1 Lite?

Gregg Kellogg: q+ to ask what processing rules would be different for RDFa 1.1 Lite?←

15:24:55 <niklasl> manu: the closest we've come to that is what Shane just said. We need to get a clear idea of what e.g. google wants

Manu Sporny: the closest we've come to that is what Shane just said. We need to get a clear idea of what e.g. google wants←

15:25:06 <niklasl> manu: I don't think we should have a normative statement there.

Manu Sporny: I don't think we should have a normative statement there.←

15:35:58 <manu1> PROPOSAL: RDFa Lite 1.1 will make normative statements about Document Conformance, but stay silent on RDFa Processor conformance. HTML+RDFa 1.1 will depend on RDFa Core 1.1 and RDFa Lite 1.1 and will make normative statements both on Document Conformance and RDFa Processor conformance.

PROPOSED: RDFa Lite 1.1 will make normative statements about Document Conformance, but stay silent on RDFa Processor conformance. HTML+RDFa 1.1 will depend on RDFa Core 1.1 and RDFa Lite 1.1 and will make normative statements both on Document Conformance and RDFa Processor conformance.←

15:36:29 <manu1> RESOLVED: RDFa Lite 1.1 will make normative statements about Document Conformance, but stay silent on RDFa Processor conformance. HTML+RDFa 1.1 will depend on RDFa Core 1.1 and RDFa Lite 1.1 and will make normative statements both on Document Conformance and RDFa Processor conformance.

RESOLVED: RDFa Lite 1.1 will make normative statements about Document Conformance, but stay silent on RDFa Processor conformance. HTML+RDFa 1.1 will depend on RDFa Core 1.1 and RDFa Lite 1.1 and will make normative statements both on Document Conformance and RDFa Processor conformance.←

15:37:41 <niklasl> manu: HTML+RDFa 1.1 will use RDFa Lite to speak of document conformance: the full core and the lite subset; processing rules are the same as Core + XHTML (process all attributes plus host language requirements)

Manu Sporny: HTML+RDFa 1.1 will use RDFa Lite to speak of document conformance: the full core and the lite subset; processing rules are the same as Core + XHTML (process all attributes plus host language requirements)←

15:37:58 <niklasl> shane: you could have the same effect without referencing Lite

15:40:52 <manu1> niklas: There are some things that strike a similar perspective in the HTML5 spec - HTML5 includes every old element like <font>, but discourages their use.

Niklas Lindström: There are some things that strike a similar perspective in the HTML5 spec - HTML5 includes every old element like <font>, but discourages their use. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←

15:41:14 <manu1> niklas: self-closing elements, even though it isn't an XHTML5 document. Perhaps there is something in the wording that we could borrow from the HTML5 spec.

Niklas Lindström: self-closing elements, even though it isn't an XHTML5 document. Perhaps there is something in the wording that we could borrow from the HTML5 spec. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←

15:41:50 <niklasl> manu: good point. We need to find the language for this.

15:48:48 <manu1> niklas: There might be that impression, but there shouldn't be that instability. There are two different perspectives on how to use features of RDFa - neither is going away. Thinking of promoting @resource gives it a simpler shape.

Niklas Lindström: There might be that impression, but there shouldn't be that instability. There are two different perspectives on how to use features of RDFa - neither is going away. Thinking of promoting @resource gives it a simpler shape. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←

15:49:34 <niklasl> manu: technically, in a vacuum, it might be simpler; but switching the mindset is much harder; and @about has more meaning

Manu Sporny: technically, in a vacuum, it might be simpler; but switching the mindset is much harder; and @about has more meaning←

15:54:32 <manu1> niklas: Yes, important point - alluded to this proposal as not limited to RDFa Lite... most pressing part, subset of RDFa - main question: Do people think that we should re-imagine the best practice of RDFa to use @resource vs. @about?

Niklas Lindström: Yes, important point - alluded to this proposal as not limited to RDFa Lite... most pressing part, subset of RDFa - main question: Do people think that we should re-imagine the best practice of RDFa to use @resource vs. @about? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←

15:55:08 <manu1> niklas: If we were to do this, we could avoid these issues, we should make the same conceptual change in RDFa Core 1.1.

Niklas Lindström: If we were to do this, we could avoid these issues, we should make the same conceptual change in RDFa Core 1.1. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←

15:55:49 <niklasl> manu: I agree that if we do the change we should do it all the way; but we've been teaching @about for 4 years.

Manu Sporny: I agree that if we do the change we should do it all the way; but we've been teaching @about for 4 years.←

15:56:25 <niklasl> manu: we don't know if people will prefer and understand this better

Manu Sporny: we don't know if people will prefer and understand this better←